4.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in the village of Lebedyn.
5.  On 16 August 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Boryspil Town Court against the Boryspil Town Police Department and the State Treasury, seeking compensation. The applicant alleged that Messrs K. and M. had unlawfully attempted to enter and search his flat and insulted him in the presence of his neighbours. Messrs K. and M. took part in the proceedings as third parties. On 30 August 2000 the court found against the applicant. On an unspecified date the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
6.  On 11 September 2001 the Boryspil Town Court found in part for the applicant and awarded him UAH 12,125.09[1] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and court expenses. On an unspecified date the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
7.  On 24 May 2002 the Boryspil Town Court ruled in part for the applicant. It found that two acting police officers, Messrs K. and M., had been ordered by the Boryspil Town Police Department to check the applicant's flat. On 25 April 2000, in the course of execution of the above order, they had unlawfully attempted to enter the applicant's flat and had made abusive statements in his respect. The court held that the State authorities were responsible for the acts of the police officers and ordered the State Treasury to pay the applicant UAH 2,393.09[2] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and court expenses. The court, referring to Article 25 of the Police Act (see paragraph 18 below), further ordered Messrs K. and M. to apologise for their unlawful actions in the presence of the applicant and his neighbours who had witnessed the incident.
8.  On 1 July 2002 the same court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal for failure to pay court fees and to comply with other procedural formalities. On 9 August 2002 and 2 January 2003, respectively, the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of 1 July 2002.
9.  On 26 April 2003 the Pecherskyy District Bailiffs' Service initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the monetary award of 24 May 2002.
10.  On 27 August 2003 the applicant was paid the full amount of the award.
11.  On 5 September 2003 the applicant submitted to the Boryspil Town Bailiffs' Service a writ of execution for the non-pecuniary part of the judgment.
12.  On 8 September 2003 the Bailiffs' Service initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the obligation of Mr K. to apologize to the applicant.
13.  On 3 and 14 October 2003 the Bailiffs' Service fined Mr K. for his failure to comply with the judgment of 24 May 2002.
14.  On 22 October 2003 the Bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings against Mr K., no reasons having been given for this decision.
15.  On 23 March 2004 Mr K. retired. His present place of residence is unknown.
16.  On 25 April 2006 Mr M. together with two other police officers visited the applicant's place of residence. According to the Government, the applicant and his daughter received the apologies from Mr M. for the events of 25 April 2000. The applicant stated that he had been absent during that visit.
17.  On 14 September 2006 the Trudova Slava local newspaper (газета “Трудова Слава”) published an announcement which read as follows:
“...[Mr M.], an employee of the MIA [Ministry of Internal Affairs], officially apologizes to [Mr] Donichenko, Ivan Petrovych, for the moral damage caused to him by the police officer in the course of exercise of his duties in 2001.”